Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

How can jewelry be sin? Its what we do with jewelry that can become the sin.

RIGHT!

God doesn't contradict Himself. He knew the Law could not save man, yet he had Israel follow it for generations before Christ came.

That cannot apply, it is apples and oranges. Law is not sin as people are saying wearing jewelry is sin. RDP said God TOLERATED the SIN of jewelry. Law was never sin. Just an incomplete approach to God.

Rom 7:7 KJV What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

That logic doesn't hold up. He foreknew Adam would sin, yet he still placed the tree in the garden.

But Adam was not a sinner when God made him. My logic does stand. Believe me, you are fighting a losing battle in trying to show jewelry should be banned.

He foreknew Israel would murmur, yet he still sent Moses to redeem them from Egypt. He foreknew Saul would depart and even warned the people, but he still annointed Saul their first King.

None of these examples fit. Israel's deliverance was not sin, and neither was Saul's kingship. You folks are using examples that do not compare at all. You are making the same errors that RDP is rife with making. You are just not as extreme or using silly arguments as RDP is. You are saying jewelry should NEVER be worn, while it is not true Israel should never have been redeemed, nor Saul should never have been king, nor Law should never have been implemented. You are saying wearing jewelry is sin when none of the examples you listed by comparison show any sin in the picture of their general concept, but only in departing later from God and ruining their relationship with Him.

What is forsaking the world? If not forsaking the image of it, actions of it, tastes of it? Jewelry isn't the only thing advised against.

Which is it? Jewelry is banned or simply advised against? You know very well that your fellowship does not simply advise against jewelry. They ban it. Even your own words, "advised against", betray the fact that the bible is not banning jewelry in the New Testament. I understand that most of the aversion to jewelry and what you are saying is due to other folks watching you. One day you will have to realize it is not so much what man thinks as they see us, but what God thinks.

There is nothing in the bible that is considered to be an act of sin where at one time it was not a sin in the degree you are leaning to say wearing jewelry is an act of sin. And RDP's animal sacrifices issue is nonsense, because the cross made the difference, with even that indicating the sin was not the act of actually offering an animal in and of itself.

Although this thread is about jewelry, we could rightly talk about tobacco, drunkenness, idolatry, lust, etc. What stems from the desire to wear jewelry in a lady? You tell me, what emotion is it?

With most women it is really nothing more than the desire a man has in combing his hair! Really! They do not think of alluring men to commit adultery with them!

Why do we put so much emphasis on the outward? Its the heart of the matter that is the issue, not the gold.

Exactly! Which is my whole point! Your fellowship has MORE emphasis on the outward in the other extreme of what NOT to wear by far than on the heart. Try as they might, the ministers are not getting their desired emphasis through, for the majority always has and always will make outward apparel their main focus when it comes to what they think HOLINESS means.

I honestly think you are missing the boat by dropping the spirit of Paul's teaching because people tend to emphasize the outward. Its really about the inward, the heart. He spirit of Paul's teaching includes the outward but not because the outward is inherently wrong, but because of how the outward affects the inward.

And I honestly think you are going way too far with Paul's words, and not seeing how conflicting it is making God appear in His own "mind", so to speak. I think you took a good thing way too far, is all. One day you will see what I mean if you keep on thinking about Ezekiel 16 and Gen 24.

The Tammy Bakkers are wrong, obviously. But I only see two extremes that are both wrong when MODERATION is the balance and makes sense out of it all. Not bannings.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

RIGHT!



That cannot apply, it is apples and oranges. Law is not sin as people are saying wearing jewelry is sin. RDP said God TOLERATED the SIN of jewelry. Law was never sin. Just an incomplete approach to God.

Rom 7:7 KJV What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
.

No its not. God blessed all of these and then later it turn out sour! Its the same thing as God blesses Jewelry to later show that jewelry causes idolatry. That is not apples and oranges. Both were not sin at first but led to the sin!

Originally Posted by mfblume

But Adam was not a sinner when God made him. My logic does stand. Believe me, you are fighting a losing battle in trying to show jewelry should be banned.
.

I see plainly what God has convicted me of. Please quit comparing this discussion to a match to see who wins or loses. This is about pleasing God and making it heaven, not seeing who the best is, we are all dung, jewelry or not/ Believe it or not brother, I'm not battling you or anyone else. If you don't believe it, fine. That doesn't change what the Bible says.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Which is it? Jewelry is banned or simply advised against? You know very well that your fellowship does not simply advise against jewelry. They ban it. Even your own words, "advised against", betray the fact that the bible is not banning jewelry in the New Testament. I understand that most of the aversion to jewelry and what you are saying is due to other folks watching you. One day you will have to realize it is not so much what man thinks as they see us, but what God thinks.
.

You really think I care about who is watching me? Please don't categorize me with the crowd of men pleasers. I want to please God, whether the elders approve of me or not. I would say the crowd that says wearing jewelry has no bearing on your heart are men pleasers, its what everyone wants to hear!

Originally Posted by mfblume

There is nothing in the bible that is considered to be an act of sin where at one time it was not a sin in the degree you are leaning to say wearing jewelry is an act of sin. And RDP's animal sacrifices issue is nonsense, because the cross made the difference, with even that indicating the sin was not the act of actually offering an animal in and of itself.
.

Eating certain animals was sin, now it isn't....

Originally Posted by mfblume

With most women it is really nothing more than the desire a man has in combing his hair! Really! They do not think of alluring men to commit adultery with them!

.

Paul and Peter did not mention adultery for their reasons.. where did you get that? Jezebel? Its natural for a man to be prideful and puffed up within himself, its called ego but that can become sin.. we are in a sinful human nature.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Exactly! Which is my whole point! Your fellowship has MORE emphasis on the outward in the other extreme of what NOT to wear by far than on the heart. Try as they might, the ministers are not getting their desired emphasis through, for the majority always has and always will make outward apparel their main focus when it comes to what they think HOLINESS means.

.

So you don't throw the standard out.. you teach it right...The way Paul and Peter wanted it taught.

Originally Posted by mfblume

And I honestly think you are going way too far with Paul's words, and not seeing how conflicting it is making God appear in His own "mind", so to speak. I think you took a good thing way too far, is all. One day you will see what I mean if you keep on thinking about Ezekiel 16 and Gen 24.

The Tammy Bakkers are wrong, obviously. But I only see two extremes that are both wrong when MODERATION is the balance and makes sense out of it all. Not bannings.

I honestly think you are dismissing too much as what they are saying. But we can agree to disagree for now. I've given all these standards a HG litmus teach in my life. Can't back away from where I've been led to stay. I just don't condemn people like i used to

Tammy Bakker? Yea its sad. She probably did what she did because she was taught holiness when she was growing up to be only outward, maybe she was force fed it.. who knows but its sad the direction she chose.

[mfblume]

Thanks for your thoughts onefaith2.